DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims included in prosecution are claims 20, 22-27, 29, and 31.
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 12/19/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 20, 22, 24-27, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (WO 2010/060652, Jun. 3, 2010) (hereinafter Falk) in view of Buri et al. (US 2017/0129782, May 11, 2017) (hereinafter Buri).
Falk discloses antimicrobial compositions comprising silver and/or one or more silver compounds (Des., Pg. 2). Suitable silver compounds include silver stearate (satisfies silver salt of claim 20 and fatty acid of claim 26-27) (Des., Pg. 2). In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the silver or the silver compound is adsorbed on a water-insoluble, inert, non-hydratable or non-hydrated oxidic carrier (satisfies coating of claim 1) (Des., Pg. 2). The carrier material should have a particle size of less than 25 μm, preferably of less than 5 μm, particularly preferably less than 1 μm (satisfies particle size of claim 24-25) (Des., Pg. 2). The proportion by weight of silver or the silver compound, based on the weight of the carrier, is in the range of 0.1 wt. % to 75 wt. % (satisfies claim 29) (Des., Pg. 2). Preferred carriers include chalk and natural ground or precipitated calcium carbonates (satisfies mineral material of claim 20-22) (Des., Pg. 2). The antimicrobial compositions may be used as cleaning agents (Des., Pg. 7). The amount of silver is preferably 0.1 wt. % to 20 wt. %, and particularly preferably 0.2 wt. % to 2 wt. % (Ref. Claim 9).
Falk differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the resulting antimicrobial agent has moisture pickup susceptibility of 0.05 to 1 mg/g.
However, Buri discloses a process for making a calcium carbonate containing material, wherein the process allows for the provision of calcium carbonate materials with reduced moisture pick-up (Abstract). Well known mineral fillers are natural ground calcium carbonate (GCC) and precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) (¶ [0002]). Several attempts have been made to improve the applicability of particulate mineral materials and especially calcium carbonate-containing mineral fillers. In this context, especially the residual moisture within the filler material and the moisture pick-up properties often are crucial. In the prior art, it was found that a moisture content above a minimum level associated with the carbonate mineral filler used in the composition for manufacturing a polymer film product can result in unwanted macroscopic size voids or holes in the film formed (¶ [0003]). Calcium carbonate-containing mineral filler materials may pick up moisture during storage, transportation, and/or processing which, in turn, may lead to the formation of voids in polymer compositions (¶ [0008]). The "moisture pick up susceptibility" or "moisture sorption susceptibility" of a material refers to the amount of moisture absorbed on the surface of said material within a certain time upon exposure to a defined humid atmosphere and is expressed in mg/g (¶ [0036]). The inventive calcium carbonate containing material preferably has a moisture sorption susceptibility of preferably of less than 1.0 mg/g, even more preferably of less than 0.5 mg/g and most preferred of less than 0.3 mg/g (¶ [0066]). The use of the calcium carbonate containing material as a filler material in polymer applications may be of particular advantage (¶ [0131]). The polymer material or composition optionally may comprise one or more additives such as antimicrobials (¶ [0156]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant claims, to have formulated the antimicrobial agent of Falk to have a moisture sorption susceptibility of preferably of less than 1.0 mg/g to most preferred less than 0.3 mg/g motivated by the desire to avoid technical drawbacks such as holes and voids in the resulting film as taught by Buri.
Regarding the amount of copper/silver salt recited in instant claim 20, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Falk’s composition comprises silver or the silver compound in an amount of 0.1 wt. % to 75 wt, preferably 0.1 wt. % to 20 wt. %, and particularly preferably 0.2 wt. % to 2 wt. %. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims lies inside the range disclosed by Falk, the range disclosed by Falk meets the instantly recited limitation.
Regarding the particle size recited in instant claims 24-25, as discussed above, Falk discloses wherein the carrier material should have a particle size of less than 25 μm, preferably of less than 5 μm, particularly preferably less than 1 μm. As such, since Falk prefers smaller particle sizes, it would reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that Falk’s particles would have average particle sizes that encompass the d(50) values recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Falk and Buri render obvious claims 20, 22, 24-27, 29, and 31.
2. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (WO 2010/060652, Jun. 3, 2010) (hereinafter Falk) in view of Buri et al. (US 2017/0129782, May 11, 2017) (hereinafter Buri) and further in view of Budde et al. (US 2016/0271025, Sep. 22, 2016) (hereinafter Budde).
The teachings of Falk and Buri are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Falk and Buri differ from the instant claim insofar as not disclosing wherein the precipitated calcium carbonates used have aragonitic, vateritic or calcitic crystal forms.
However, Budde teaches cleaning compositions comprising calcium carbonate (Abstract). In an embodiment, the compositions further comprise natural ground calcium carbonate and/or precipitated calcium carbonate (¶ [0017]). Suitable crystal forms of precipitated calcium carbonate include vateritic, calcitic or aragonitic crystal forms (¶ [0029]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Falk in view of Buri discloses wherein the composition may comprise precipitated calcium carbonate. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Falk in view of Buri to comprise precipitated calcium carbonate in the vateritic, calcitic or aragonitic crystal forms, since these are known forms of precipitated calcium carbonate for use in cleaning compositions comprising calcium carbonate as taught by Budde.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Falk, Buri, and Budde render obvious claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20, 22-27, 29, and 31 have been considered but are moot because new rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment have been made. As discussed in the current rejections, Falk discloses an antibacterial agent obtained by coating calcium carbonate with silver stearate. However, Buri’s teaching in reference to moisture pick-up susceptibility and its effects on mineral filler material (i.e., holes and voids) is applied to meet the requirements of the new limitation “moisture pickup susceptibility of from 0.05 to 1 mg/g”.
Conclusion
Claims 20, 22-27, 29, and 31 are rejected.
Claims 32-47 are withdrawn.
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abdulrahman Abbas whose telephone number is (571)270-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612